The following reply was made to PR kern/181006; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Joao Neves Cabral
To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org,
j...@dhis.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/181006: [run] [patch] mbuf leak in run(4) driver
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 09:49:19 +0100
Sorry, just a couple of mistakes/correct
On 1 Aug 2013, at 09:22, "Newpol, Richard" wrote:
> All,
> We seem to have discovered a problem that occurs when adding an address (or
> alias) to a DOWNed lagg interface. After adding an address, when you try to
> bring the interface UP it can't reach the desired networks.
>
> Turns out that
Hello,
I would like propose new BPF instructions for the misc category: BPF_COP
and BPF_COPX. It would provide a capability of calling an external
function - think of BPF "coprocessor". The argument for BPF_COP is an
index to a pre-loaded array of function pointers. BPF_COPX takes the
function
On 4 Aug 2013, at 12:12, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like propose new BPF instructions for the misc category: BPF_COP
> and BPF_COPX. It would provide a capability of calling an external
> function - think of BPF "coprocessor". The argument for BPF_COP is an
> index to
Rui Paulo wrote:
> >
> > Comments?
>
>
> Why do you need this in the first place?
It provides us a capability to offload more complex packet processing.
My primary user would be NPF in NetBSD, e.g. one of the operations is to
lookup an IP address in a table/ipset.
> Are you sure this is a sa
I think it's slightly unfair to propose a new extension for BPF
without any in-tree users.
Is this going to be some external commercial coprocessor?
-adrian
On 4 August 2013 12:55, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> Rui Paulo wrote:
>> >
>> > Comments?
>>
>>
>> Why do you need this in the fir
Adrian Chadd wrote:
> I think it's slightly unfair to propose a new extension for BPF
> without any in-tree users.
>
We have in-tree user in NetBSD as mentioned in the previous email:
> > It provides us a capability to offload more complex packet processing.
> > My primary user would be NPF in
On 4 August 2013 15:54, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> I think it's slightly unfair to propose a new extension for BPF
>> without any in-tree users.
>>
>
> We have in-tree user in NetBSD as mentioned in the previous email:
Ah, cool. I missed that.
>> > It provides us a
In article <9813e50b-c557-4fe1-badf-a2cffcbb8...@felyko.com>,
Rui Paulo wrote:
>On 4 Aug 2013, at 12:12, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like propose new BPF instructions for the misc category: BPF_COP
>> and BPF_COPX. It would provide a capability of calling an extern
